GPL 1.1 patch info

Just read alittle bit of info that made me happy.Its about a letter being sent to Randy Cassidy of Papyrus. [link lost in import] It mentions something about the patch fixing the lowrider bug in GPL.This is great (if its true)since I am getting an ASDL line in a month and wanna get into VROC's "Nail That Track" series.From what I could understand,it seems as though Papyrus will add vibrations when contacting the bump ***s.This will even out online racing and still allow people to do lowrider hotlaps offline.Also mentions something about papyrus wanting to do a modern F1sim!!Please dont bypass Cart racing in order to do the F1 sim though:)) Skeeter

I would like to add one thing. What about making -5 toe in at front and +5 toe in at back actually realistic. My top speed isn't modified and it handles much better than before. I can drop 1-2 seconds at watkins glen running this setup. Jesse

Quoted text (15 lines)

| Just read alittle bit of info that made me happy.Its about a letter |being sent to Randy Cassidy of Papyrus. | |[link lost in import] | | It mentions something about the patch fixing the lowrider bug in |GPL.This is great (if its true)since I am getting an ASDL line in a |month and wanna get into VROC's "Nail That Track" series.From what I |could understand,it seems as though Papyrus will add vibrations when |contacting the bump ***s.This will even out online racing and still |allow people to do lowrider hotlaps offline.Also mentions something |about papyrus wanting to do a modern F1sim!!Please dont bypass Cart |racing in order to do the F1 sim though:)) | |Skeeter

Well, we'll see when it hits the streets. But they could've *avoided* the damn lowrider *bug* if they just made the SRH minimum 2 inches and the bump *** minimum 1 inch!!! Too late now, me thinks... --Dave

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Just read alittle bit of info that made me happy.Its about a letter > being sent to Randy Cassidy of Papyrus. > [link lost in import] > It mentions something about the patch fixing the lowrider bug in > GPL.This is great (if its true)since I am getting an ASDL line in a > month and wanna get into VROC's "Nail That Track" series.From what I > could understand,it seems as though Papyrus will add vibrations when > contacting the bump ***s.This will even out online racing and still > allow people to do lowrider hotlaps offline.Also mentions something > about papyrus wanting to do a modern F1sim!!Please dont bypass Cart > racing in order to do the F1 sim though:)) > Skeeter

-- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. JMO TK

... Why on earth a letter to me would be posted on the Internet is a bit beyond me. ... I have made no such statement publicly, or privately. Randy Cassidy Technical Lead, GPL

Yep, totally true... that's a point many people often miss. Bump rubbbers *really* exist to keep the shock from bottoming out in its travel, which does bad things to the shock. But in *reality* you don't want the car bottoming all the time, so the ride height and bump *** have a a better correlation. I guess what the GPL creators (and obviously N3) wanted to do in hindsight was make it *impractical* to run those 1" ride heights because they are not *realistic* to the real world. I guess that was the only point I had to make. :-) Thanks for the input! :-) -_Dave

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > JMO > TK

-- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

Skeeter... Just wanted to clarify a couple of things for you... First, while NTT races are available via VROC's Password Room, we have no affiliation with the fine folks at VROC. In addition, participation in NTT events *doesn't* require the use of VROC. So whether you're a Netscape Navigator or an Internet Explorer user, we have the online racing answer for you! When you register for a NTT event, you receive an NTT server IP address and password, allowing you to make a direct connection from your GPL Multiplayer screen, avoiding the overhead of Netscape or any other program. Secondly, there's no need to wait for your ADSL connection! While all of our servers utilize high-speed digital connections, many of our drivers use standard, dial-up analog lines and enjoy excellent connections. But, the biggest advantages that NTT offers are a regular schedule of quality events, top-notch connections, superb fields, and the absence of irresponsible, discourteous drivers. Check out the RAS post entitled "'Nail That Track' Race Registration Procedure" for a schedule of upcoming NTT events and details on how to register for events. To get a feel for the quality of the NTT events, do a search on "Nail That Track" or "NTT" in RAS, or take a look at the "News" section of The APEX (http://gpl.gamestats.com/ ). Hope to see you at the track! Jack Rambo

Don't you love people making up what you say and using your name to promote their site and league? Jesse

Quoted text (14 lines)

|> Just read alittle bit of info that made me happy.Its about a letter |> being sent to Randy Cassidy of Papyrus. |... |Why on earth a letter to me would be posted on the Internet is a bit |beyond me. | |> It mentions something about the patch fixing the lowrider bug in |> GPL. |... |I have made no such statement publicly, or privately. | |Randy Cassidy |Technical Lead, GPL |

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 06:50:28 -0500, "Wosco" >I would like to add one thing. What about making -5 toe in at front and +5 >toe in at back actually realistic. My top speed isn't modified and it >handles much better than before. I can drop 1-2 seconds at watkins glen >running this setup. I never looked into the toe in settings before since I thought they put it there just for looks:))Remember CPR,with its ridiculous amount of car setup variables?The car model was so bad and they expected people to believe that all the settings in the garage actualy did something.At least GPL models the fact more rear toe in and the car is stable on accelerating and that front toetoein or toeout actually fix corner entry handling problems and straight line stability. Message to race car simulation developers,only put what is actually being modeled in the setup screens.This way were not tuning options that dont have any effect on the speed and handling of the cars.This takes away from my immersion in the sim when this happens. I find GPL's driving model to be superb and I love blasting around the tracks controlling when and where the weight transfers.Its completly ***ting!!But I find many things wrong when I go into the garage I find many of the settings dont work the way they should.I posted this before and Ill say it again.It would be great if someone were to write a setup guide for GPL that correlates perfectly with how much the variables are actually modeled.The fact that high speed bumps are not modeled and that dynamic camber change and roll center change with roll is not modeled causes many of the garage variables to not work the way they are suppose to.So please tell us how much they are modled. For example **front Toein**--add toein to stabalize the chassis on the straights or toe out to help with turn-in.GPL doesnt YET model the drag that excess toe will cause so dont worry about speed with this setting. .I find it silly ,and unfair that some people who dont know that toein has no effect on speed,will dial most of it out for higher top end.Race someone on the net and if the person knows all the little quirks of the garage,theyll have an advantage.Just look at the top hotlapper's setups. Please all you people that love GPL,dont flame me for writing this.I just feel that it would be much better to tell us what the garage settings actually do so we ALL can pull maximum performance out of the cars Skeeter.

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Jesse >| Just read alittle bit of info that made me happy.Its about a letter >|being sent to Randy Cassidy of Papyrus. >| >|[link lost in import] >| >| It mentions something about the patch fixing the lowrider bug in >|GPL.This is great (if its true)since I am getting an ASDL line in a >|month and wanna get into VROC's "Nail That Track" series.From what I >|could understand,it seems as though Papyrus will add vibrations when >|contacting the bump ***s.This will even out online racing and still >|allow people to do lowrider hotlaps offline.Also mentions something >|about papyrus wanting to do a modern F1sim!!Please dont bypass Cart >|racing in order to do the F1 sim though:)) >| >|Skeeter

That still didn't answer his original question. IN GPL ect..ect..ect.. The answer you gave is a true answer but... what about in GPL?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > JMO > TK

-- ========================================= Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? MikeBa on the TEN network. Member of R.O.R. 1999 http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/noflame.html ========================================= Racing online with the help of...... Race Communications Association http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html Holodyne Engineering Mystic Music mikeba.vcf < 1K Download

I am surprised to hear this. I dialed out toe-in for the long straight on Kyalami and I thought it decreased my laptimes. I guess It was just psychological(?) rob. >I would like to add one thing. What about making -5 toe in at front and +5 >toe in at back actually realistic. My top speed isn't modified and it >handles much better than before. I can drop 1-2 seconds at watkins glen >running this setup. >Jesse <snip>

I have been reading up on this topic and I have come to agrre with this statement you made.Say a tire has 10in of travel before the spring compresses completely and the shock inside it hits its bump ***.Lowering the car to 1in ride height does not shorten this amount of movement that the tire has before it bottoms on the bump ***.So all these lowrider guys(me included)are actually scraping the chassis's onto the pavement but it seems GPL doesnt model this happening.Just applying the brakes when you have super soft springs up front and a 1in ride height will slam the nose into the ground and cause a spark parade.Doesnt happen in GPL.All Papy has to do to prevent people from using lowrider setups is to model the undercarriage scraping on the ground correctly.I use about 3.75in ride height to prevent the chassis from bottoming at the Ring but I find the car is a bear to drive with all the weight transfer happening.Lower it down to 1in and it handles like glue but its not realistic because the tub would be scraping all over the place just by braking and accellerating.Please Papy,if I am 100% correct on this,fix the tub/ground model in the patch. I know this has nothing to do with motorsports but it does have to do with realism in simulations in general. The flight sim Warbirds (its free for download) has an outstanding flight model and has gotten the Gold Award from PC Testpilot-----www.pctestpilot.com-----This website is run by real pilots who put the various flight sims to the test for realism in flight model.I have been following Warbirds for yrs and love the way its flight model and physics is constantly being worked on.The constant revisions being done to its physics has brought this beautiful sim to unparralled realism in flight models IMO.In its newest revision to be avaiable for download soon,it will feature analog controlled brakes and better ground modeling for improved take offs and landings.Better gunnery(things such as bullet drag being added and dispersion being improved upon)model and the usual upgrade of a plane or two.I only bring this up because I feel that Papy should improve the tub/ground model and include it in the upcoming patch.I dont expect Papy to continually improve upon GPL1's physics as Warbirds does since the makers of Warbirds make their money from its online only gameplay andso have to keep it cutting edge.Papy on the otherhand will improve the physics model in every new GPL that they put out.I only hope its alot since modern racing doesnt allow the massive drifts and slides that GPL's cars do Skeeter.

rob heeft geschreven in bericht ... You shouldn't look at laptimes but at the topspeed (replays). regards, Harald

Quoted text (10 lines)

> rob heeft geschreven in bericht ... > >I am surprised to hear this. I dialed out toe-in for the long straight > >on Kyalami and I thought it decreased my laptimes. I guess It > >was just psychological(?) > You shouldn't look at laptimes but at the topspeed (replays). > regards, > Harald

Whilst providing better turn-in etc, running extreame measures of Toe also increases tire temps - especially on the scrub side. It's a nice cure for getting the fronts to heat up, but I think GPl models this a smidgeon weakly. Running 0.500 Toe Out at the front would make the car very vulnerable to bumps and unevenness in the track surface, and it should be more of a handful during braking. Having said that; it's still hats of to Mr.Kaemmer and Papy, their achievement is truly mindboggeling!! When it comes to the setup part of GPL; I don't think anybody of us would have enjoyed "more realistic" options - we would have been stuck with Anti-roll bars, tire temps and maybe a few gear ratios. It's much more challenging to have all these options, and as for the low-rider parade; I don't go much faster just because I lower the car another 1/2 ". Then again, I've ruined so many cars, engines and human lives to get to my best laps, realism has vaned a tad:-) What I would love to see was a modification on the sound, so that there would be a different sound when off the throttle. Just listening to a DFV crackling whilst braking makes the hairs stand out on my neck! Also, I'd just love a lumpy idle! (remember REVS had this!) From real-life racecar experience, the sound when you're on the brakes is unbeliveable; the straight-cut gears whining, pops & crackles from the exhaust, the engine hesitates and misfires before you get back on it..and 8-0 I MISS SUMMER!!!!!! My 2 cents:) Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons www.cheekracing.electra.no/GPL/simrace1.htm -----------------------------------------

That is funny since I have seen a Brabham BT24 that is now used for Solo ll and it was maybe 2" off the ground. The only change this car had was a Cosworth 2 liter motor since it was now a Formula A. If the tub is not bottoming to a point where car is undriveable. I have found that a 1" ride height does not really suit me all that well but if I have another 1/2" of travel the car seems to work very well at least for me. Addtionally My Corolla which is setup for racing is only 2.5 inches off the ground. Dave

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any > of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be > less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. > > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump

***s. > > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > > JMO > > TK > -- > Regards, > Bruce. > ---------- > HMRC Web site address is:- > http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm > ----------

Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > JMO > TK

-- Regards, Bruce. ---------- HMRC Web site address is:- http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm ----------

Two inches ground clearance from the lowest point of the tub is certainly way lower than what was the norm during the period in which these cars were raced, David. I can assure you that average ground clearance back then was in the order of four inches or more, with car fuelled and driver on board.

Quoted text (37 lines)

> That is funny since I have seen a Brabham BT24 that is now used for Solo ll > and it was maybe 2" off the ground. The only change this car had was a > Cosworth 2 liter motor since it was now a Formula A. If the tub is not > bottoming to a point where car is undriveable. I have found that a 1" ride > height does not really suit me all that well but if I have another 1/2" of > travel the car seems to work very well at least for me. Addtionally My > Corolla which is setup for racing is only 2.5 inches off the ground. > Dave > > Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any > > of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be > > less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. > > > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump > ***s. > > > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > > > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still > have > > > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > > > JMO > > > TK > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce. > > ---------- > > HMRC Web site address is:- > > http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm > > ----------

-- Regards, Bruce. ---------- HMRC Web site address is:- http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm ----------

True. I was running the Glen with 1inch SRH and 2.5inches of ***s. I never ever got on ***s. The suspension had enough travel - I didn't even use hard springs. But I don't see the problem with this low-rider thingie. Is there anyone out there that drives 7inches just because it may look good in replays ? IMO, the ones that whine about this setting are few seconds off the pace and think that if the SRH would be 2inches that would even out the competition... Guess what ? It wouldn't ! There ! The cars would be harder to drive, nothing else (the centre of gravity would be higer, yielding in more body roll (weight transfer)). Wel anyway - I have a pic of Lotus 49 on my HD and I can tell you it's not much off the floor. It's very low and it's suspension is straight and not collapsed ;-) Regards, Tadej Krevh Lotus Internet Racing [link lost in import]

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > JMO > TK

Hi Bruce... I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale (like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches... But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1 patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal* in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise them. they'd be in the right ballpark. If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the 1.1 patch. NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-) --Dave

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any > of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be > less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. > > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > > JMO > > TK > -- > Regards, > Bruce. > ---------- > HMRC Web site address is:- > http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm > ----------

-- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

Hi again dave.You seem like you know what your talking about so I wanna ask you if you agree with my post.I feel that Papy has to add a better tub/gound model to GPL in order to realistically combat this lowrider bug. Does lowering the ride height also lower the travel a suspension system has.Many race car performance books I have read state that its bad to lower ride height by shortening the springs.They write that your better off lowering with low profile tires.But they are talking about streetcars.How are the cars in GPL lowered.Do race cars have a way to lower the ride height other then lowering the spring length and low profile tires? I have actually measured the spring length at the rear shock when I use a 1in and a 5in ride height and its exactly the same.This is why I feel that with a car that is 1inch off the floor and a suspension that can give much more movement then just 1in ,the car will scrape the tub constantly.I have my car in GPL at 1inride height,1in bump stops and soft springs and shocks.When I slam the brakes or acclerate hard I can see in plain view that my tub bottoms onto the ground.But there is no sparks or handling imbalance.Only when I really slam the tub into the ground does it happen. skeeter

Quoted text (53 lines)

>Hi Bruce... >I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on >allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale >(like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches... >But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1 >patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal* >in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be >loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic >spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise >them. they'd be in the right ballpark. >If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched >hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients >could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the >1.1 patch. >NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from >Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-) >--Dave >> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any >> of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be >> less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. >> > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. >> > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. >> > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have >> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. >> > JMO >> > TK >> -- >> Regards, >> Bruce. >> ---------- >> HMRC Web site address is:- >> http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm >> ---------- >-- >Dave Schwabe >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site >http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

Hi Skeet, Well, I'll take my best shot at these below... > Does lowering the ride height also lower the travel a suspension > system has. Yes, but like you say, the two are not always linear, that is suspension travel=ride height in a 1-1 relationship. Many race car performance books I have read state that its Yeah, this again is related to suspension travel. If you lower the suspension only by the springs, you will get a much reduced shock travel. Shocks don't like to be bottomed, and if you have them in too narrow a range of motion than which they were designed for, then you will lose the benefits of the progressive valving most shocks are designed for. Race shocks, like F1 and Indycar and even to a certain extent Nascar (which usually have more suspension travel than the other two), have a very limited range of motion, but this is designed into the shock so that it *works* properly in this limited range. Well, sometimes (Nascar especially) they can relocate mounting points... but most if not all high-performance coil-over race shocks have threaded spring perches and can *turn* these perches up and down to alter height. The length of the spring is the same, but it is just moved up or down the shock body. What car is this with? (just curious) Yep. Which is when you want to raise the car to prevent it or stiffen springs. Yep, I notice this to be true too. But it can happen at certain places, like corner 1 at Kyalami under braking if the shock/springs aren't right, as it can at Eau Rouge. Hope it helps. --Dave

Quoted text (58 lines)

> skeeter > >Hi Bruce... > >I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on > >allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale > >(like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches... > >But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1 > >patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal* > >in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be > >loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic > >spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise > >them. they'd be in the right ballpark. > >If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched > >hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients > >could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the > >1.1 patch. > >NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from > >Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-) > >--Dave > >> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any > >> of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be > >> less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. > >> > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. > >> > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. > >> > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have > >> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. > >> > JMO > >> > TK > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Bruce. > >> ---------- > >> HMRC Web site address is:- > >> http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm > >> ---------- > >-- > >Dave Schwabe > >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site > >http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

-- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

Hi all, Here's what I hope to see in the patch: I hate being automatically brought back to the multiplayer screen every time I get discoed. I'd prefer having a message flash at the bottom of your screen while you're still driving. There's quite enough space for messages anyway. Then I would decide by myself if I want to continue racing or not, and most of all I would be able to see my lap times for the current race, the messages that accumulated on the chat pad during the race and maybe (if I get out soon enough) the positions of all drivers prior to the disconnection. And last but not the least, you could finish that incredible lap you were on before you got discoed (most of the time to see that it wasn't as incredible as you thought it was...) instead of experiencing the frustration of being forced back to the multiplayer menu... I really don't understand this design decision. I don't see how it enhances the experience, nor do I see how it simplifies the programming aspect. I haven't heard much people complaining about this so maybe I'm alone be left out in the patch. I hope it will make it, but I'm not holding my breath. A. Renault

>Hi all, >Here's what I hope to see in the patch: >I hate being automatically brought back to the multiplayer screen >every time I get discoed. Me too - especially as you never get to save a reply when this happens. Alan http://www.chandler.u-net.com

>Me too - especially as you never get to save a reply when this >happens. I mean save a replay of course Alan http://www.chandler.u-net.com

Dave,I have reread for the tenth time(:)Doug arnoa's interview by Randy Magrueder.It specifically states that a 1in ride height and a 1in bump *** setting means no suspension play at all.Then he goes on to say that the bump ***s act like stiff springs and are modeled from 400 to 800 pounds.So a bump *** setting of 1in and a SRH of 1in will give the car an extra 400 pounds to each individual spring rate.It makes sense now since even though the suspension is always riding the bump ***s,the bump ***s act like 400pound springs.I was questioning the physics model since I thought that riding on the bump ***s would give no play at all but now know they act like hard springs.This is why we still get the car movement but it doesnt scrape unless you slam the chassis down.It all makes sense now to me.I wish someone who worked on GPL would of answered our questions on this topic. DA says that the only thing that allows this lowrider bug is the fact that GPL doesnt model high speed bumps.With realistic bumps modeled we would never ever be able to ride the bump stops since the car would be launching off the bumps.So I agrre with everyone here that says that GPL should not allow SRH below 2.5in.Hopefully patch 1.1 will take away the ability to go below 2.5inSRH or even better,add high speed bumps:))))) I know that Im dreaming here. Skeeter

Quoted text (127 lines)

>Hi Skeet, >Well, I'll take my best shot at these below... >> Does lowering the ride height also lower the travel a suspension >> system has. >Yes, but like you say, the two are not always linear, that is suspension >travel=ride height in a 1-1 relationship. >Many race car performance books I have read state that its >> bad to lower ride height by shortening the springs.They write that >> your better off lowering with low profile tires.But they are talking >> about streetcars. >Yeah, this again is related to suspension travel. If you lower the >suspension only by the springs, you will get a much reduced shock >travel. Shocks don't like to be bottomed, and if you have them in too >narrow a range of motion than which they were designed for, then you >will lose the benefits of the progressive valving most shocks are >designed for. Race shocks, like F1 and Indycar and even to a certain >extent Nascar (which usually have more suspension travel than the other >two), have a very limited range of motion, but this is designed into the >shock so that it *works* properly in this limited range. >>How are the cars in GPL lowered.Do race cars have a >> way to lower the ride height other then lowering the spring length and >> low profile tires? >Well, sometimes (Nascar especially) they can relocate mounting points... >but most if not all high-performance coil-over race shocks have threaded >spring perches and can *turn* these perches up and down to alter height. >The length of the spring is the same, but it is just moved up or down >the shock body. >> I have actually measured the spring length at the rear shock when I >> use a 1in and a 5in ride height and its exactly the same. >What car is this with? (just curious) >>This is why I > feel that with a car that is 1inch off the floor and a suspension that >> can give much more movement then just 1in ,the car will scrape the tub >> constantly. >Yep. Which is when you want to raise the car to prevent it or stiffen >springs. >>I have my car in GPL at 1inride height,1in bump stops and >> soft springs and shocks.When I slam the brakes or acclerate hard I can >> see in plain view that my tub bottoms onto the ground.But there is no >> sparks or handling imbalance.Only when I really slam the tub into the >> ground does it happen. >Yep, I notice this to be true too. But it can happen at certain places, >like corner 1 at Kyalami under braking if the shock/springs aren't >right, as it can at Eau Rouge. >Hope it helps. >--Dave >> skeeter >> >Hi Bruce... >> >I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on >> >allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale >> >(like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches... >> >But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1 >> >patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal* >> >in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be >> >loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic >> >spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise >> >them. they'd be in the right ballpark. >> >If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched >> >hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients >> >could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the >> >1.1 patch. >> >NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from >> >Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-) >> >--Dave >> >> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any >> >> of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be >> >> less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. >> >> > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. >> >> > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. >> >> > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have >> >> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. >> >> > JMO >> >> > TK >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Bruce. >> >> ---------- >> >> HMRC Web site address is:- >> >> http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm >> >> ---------- >> >-- >> >Dave Schwabe >> >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site >> >http://users.wi.net/~schwabe >-- >Dave Schwabe >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site >http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

I forgot to add another thing I figured out all by myself!!!!:)))) I kept seeing Alison hines talk about how she had to put heavier springs in the Honda to keep the rears off the bumpstops.Or how she needs to play with the settings to prevent the car from rolling onto the bumpstops and lose control.How in the hell can she be writing this stuff if the fastest guys are supposedlly riding on the bump***s I would say.Now I know that when your always riding the bump ***s you set the chassis up to be balanced for that setup.But if you slam the rear onto its bump ***s,the rear goes hard instantly and the back to front balance goes out the door.Hmmmm very interesting.I read the interview with Alison hines recently and she is one awesome lady to have betatesting our sims.I really like her comment on how she thinks Papy should include more info on the cars.Things such as weight distribution,power torque curves and height of center of gravity.Be a great addition to what we see in the teams info menus. Skeeter

Quoted text (155 lines)

> Dave,I have reread for the tenth time(:)Doug arnoa's interview by >Randy Magrueder.It specifically states that a 1in ride height and a >1in bump *** setting means no suspension play at all.Then he goes >on to say that the bump ***s act like stiff springs and are >modeled from 400 to 800 pounds.So a bump *** setting of 1in and a >SRH of 1in will give the car an extra 400 pounds to each individual >spring rate.It makes sense now since even though the suspension is >always riding the bump ***s,the bump ***s act like 400pound >springs.I was questioning the physics model since I thought that >riding on the bump ***s would give no play at all but now know they >act like hard springs.This is why we still get the car movement but it >doesnt scrape unless you slam the chassis down.It all makes sense now >to me.I wish someone who worked on GPL would of answered our questions >on this topic. > DA says that the only thing that allows this lowrider bug is the >fact that GPL doesnt model high speed bumps.With realistic bumps >modeled we would never ever be able to ride the bump stops since the >car would be launching off the bumps.So I agrre with everyone here >that says that GPL should not allow SRH below 2.5in.Hopefully patch >1.1 will take away the ability to go below 2.5inSRH or even better,add >high speed bumps:))))) >I know that Im dreaming here. >Skeeter >>Hi Skeet, >>Well, I'll take my best shot at these below... >>> Does lowering the ride height also lower the travel a suspension >>> system has. >>Yes, but like you say, the two are not always linear, that is suspension >>travel=ride height in a 1-1 relationship. >>Many race car performance books I have read state that its >>> bad to lower ride height by shortening the springs.They write that >>> your better off lowering with low profile tires.But they are talking >>> about streetcars. >>Yeah, this again is related to suspension travel. If you lower the >>suspension only by the springs, you will get a much reduced shock >>travel. Shocks don't like to be bottomed, and if you have them in too >>narrow a range of motion than which they were designed for, then you >>will lose the benefits of the progressive valving most shocks are >>designed for. Race shocks, like F1 and Indycar and even to a certain >>extent Nascar (which usually have more suspension travel than the other >>two), have a very limited range of motion, but this is designed into the >>shock so that it *works* properly in this limited range. >>>How are the cars in GPL lowered.Do race cars have a >>> way to lower the ride height other then lowering the spring length and >>> low profile tires? >>Well, sometimes (Nascar especially) they can relocate mounting points... >>but most if not all high-performance coil-over race shocks have threaded >>spring perches and can *turn* these perches up and down to alter height. >>The length of the spring is the same, but it is just moved up or down >>the shock body. >>> I have actually measured the spring length at the rear shock when I >>> use a 1in and a 5in ride height and its exactly the same. >>What car is this with? (just curious) >>>This is why I > feel that with a car that is 1inch off the floor and a suspension that >>> can give much more movement then just 1in ,the car will scrape the tub >>> constantly. >>Yep. Which is when you want to raise the car to prevent it or stiffen >>springs. >>>I have my car in GPL at 1inride height,1in bump stops and >>> soft springs and shocks.When I slam the brakes or acclerate hard I can >>> see in plain view that my tub bottoms onto the ground.But there is no >>> sparks or handling imbalance.Only when I really slam the tub into the >>> ground does it happen. >>Yep, I notice this to be true too. But it can happen at certain places, >>like corner 1 at Kyalami under braking if the shock/springs aren't >>right, as it can at Eau Rouge. >>Hope it helps. >>--Dave >>> skeeter >>> >Hi Bruce... >>> >I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on >>> >allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale >>> >(like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches... >>> >But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1 >>> >patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal* >>> >in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be >>> >loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic >>> >spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise >>> >them. they'd be in the right ballpark. >>> >If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched >>> >hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients >>> >could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the >>> >1.1 patch. >>> >NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from >>> >Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-) >>> >--Dave >>> >> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any >>> >> of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be >>> >> less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None. >>> >> > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s. >>> >> > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground. >>> >> > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have >>> >> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***. >>> >> > JMO >>> >> > TK >>> >> -- >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Bruce. >>> >> ---------- >>> >> HMRC Web site address is:- >>> >> http://www2.tpg.com.au/users/brucek/hmrc/index.htm >>> >> ---------- >>> >-- >>> >Dave Schwabe >>> >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site >>> >http://users.wi.net/~schwabe >>-- >>Dave Schwabe >>The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site >>http://users.wi.net/~schwabe

Skeeter... there are technical points we could beat to death about Doug A's comments... but I won't, so see below... >snip> >So I agrre with everyone here > that says that GPL should not allow SRH below 2.5in.Hopefully patch > 1.1 will take away the ability to go below 2.5inSRH YES! I hope so too! If 1.1 does it, that should be great! I am all for it, even though I use lowrider setups now. Of course, there will be NO WAY to police the use of v1.1 and v1.0 for hotlaps, but so what? The v1.0 will always be faster due to ride height. BUT, BUT, BUT... VROC 1.1 and GPL v1.1 will ONLY work with each other!! :-) That will render GPL 1.0 and its setups (hopefully) useless... IF they fix the ride-height bug. With VROC and GPL 1.1 only working together, that *could* keep v1.0 setups from working.... I hope this happens! Fast guys will still be fast, but it will eliminate *unrealistic* setups. And, FWIW, I don't think setups will be obsolete for anyone... they might need a bit of tweaking at higher heights, but not much. Yes, you ARE dreaming!! :-) --Dave -- Dave Schwabe The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site http://users.wi.net/~schwabe